Where have I gone wrong?

Gorgeous_George

I left home at 16 rather than living with my parents until I was 30. After serving my apprenticeship I made the mistake of buying a house when I needed one rather than renting. Interest rates were high back then and it would have been cheaper to rent. Surely I could have saved thousands by now.

I missed out on holidays. Club 18-30 orgies were out of the question as I struggled to pay my bills. However, I managed to avoid credit cards and fortunately mobile phones, Gameboys, Sky TV and iPods hadn't been invented. Other than my mortgage, there was little to spend my meagre earnings on. Thank goodness the Poll Tax came along.

Except for a slight digression when I was 19, I also managed to avoid huge bank charges. If only I'd known that I could later sue my bank and reclaim the charges I might have 'enjoyed' 18-30 in Corfu after all. Can I sue someone anyway?

Anyway, time waits for no-one and today I'm stuck in a house that I only own about 70% of; the remainder belongs to Britannia. I can't even look forward to the inevitable house price crash. It seems that I bought too early.



GG

BTman

It does.. Average FTB today is in their 30's. You've lost your youth forever...

meanmachine_2

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Imobile phones, Gameboys, Sky TV and iPods hadn't been invented.

Oh not this again.

Average wage: 23K
Average house 200K

Average price of ipod: 90quid

Number of ipods I would need to buy for this tired, tedious baby boomer argument to have any basis in logic: 2,345.

Poor baby boomers having to buy a property now valued at 400K for 40K.

Aah diddums. Give me a high inflation environment any day.

Gold_Shogun

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I left home at 16 rather than living with my parents until I was 30. After serving my apprenticeship I made the mistake of buying a house when I needed one rather than renting.

... Other than my mortgage, there was little to spend my meagre earnings on. Thank goodness the Poll Tax came along.

Anyway, time waits for no-one and today I'm stuck in a house that I only own about 70% of; the remainder belongs to Britannia. I can't even look forward to the inevitable house price crash. It seems that I bought too early.

I think I may have spotted the fatal flaws in your cunning plan, Baldrick

1) ... You started too late ... You should have left home at 15 like me, you lazy burger
&
2) ... You should have ignored the Poll Tax ... If you'd wisely invested that money into your mortgage at that time instead, you'd probably own 100% of your house now instead of a mere 70%

Still, Never Mind ... Remember these vital lessons, Grasshopper, and you may get it right in your next reincarnation :cool:

Slante' :beer:
Bob

P.S. ---> Thank you kindly for brightening up my Weekend

lynzpower

YOu could always sell of your BTL's and pay off your own mortgage

kingkano

meanmachine wrote: »

Oh not this again.

Average wage: 23K
Average house 200K

Average price of ipod: 90quid

Number of ipods I would need to buy for this tired, tedious baby boomer argument to have any basis in logic: 2,345.

Poor baby boomers having to buy a property now valued at 400K for 40K.

Aah diddums. Give me a high inflation environment any day.

How many people are on average wage? How many of those require an 'average' price house from scratch? Seriously I find this argument touted out everytime as ridiculous. The world doesnt work on averages!!!

Also, how far back do you really have to go to find the point in time that a single average wage earner could buy an average house? My research says it must be the 60s maybe earlier. My grandparents just about remember it happening like this....

I think you'll find since then that you've needed 2 incomes to comfortably afford an 'average' house. Otherwise single people can buy a flat (alot less than average) or rent (best thing for single people surely!)

nelly_2

kingkano wrote: »

How many people are on average wage? How many of those require an 'average' price house from scratch? Seriously I find this argument touted out everytime as ridiculous. The world doesnt work on averages!!!

Also, how far back do you really have to go to find the point in time that a single average wage earner could buy an average house? My research says it must be the 60s maybe earlier. My grandparents just about remember it happening like this....

I think you'll find since then that you've needed 2 incomes to comfortably afford an 'average' house. Otherwise single people can buy a flat (alot less than average) or rent (best thing for single people surely!)

What he is getting at is the dissparity between average wage and average house price has never been greater.

and the same for lower paid workers and flats/ cheaper houses etc

pinkshoes

But originally people didn't buy a house on their own! They got married earlier, then bought a house with their JOINT salary... so average JOINT wage is £46k, they can save up £13k deposit each (not so hard on £23k - I managed it, even with student debt), then take a mortgage at 3.75 times their joint salary, which isn't too strenuous unless interest rates hit 16% again!

kingkano

nelly wrote: »

What he is getting at is the dissparity between average wage and average house price has never been greater.

and the same for lower paid workers and flats/ cheaper houses etc

Which then comes back to what gorgeous george first pointed out. the amazing amount of 'tosh' that people spend their money on compared to back then! meanmaching took just the ipod for his example.... he forgot to include - mobile phone @ £35pm, sky tv @ £50pm, broadband internet @ £25pm, gadgets and crap could easily total 1k pa for some people, 3 nights a week out clubbing with friends.... who knows.... holidays (luxury holidays!) abroad etc etc etc

Although we complain how expensive house prices are, my grandparents still seemed to have a much harder life then people now, had less disposable money leftover.... yet obviously house prices were so much better compared to wages?? I dont understand that bit.

Guy_Montag

kingkano wrote: »

Which then comes back to what gorgeous george first pointed out. the amazing amount of 'tosh' that people spend their money on compared to back then! meanmaching took just the ipod for his example.... he forgot to include - mobile phone @ £35pm, sky tv @ £50pm, broadband internet @ £25pm, gadgets and crap could easily total 1k pa for some people, 3 nights a week out clubbing with friends.... who knows.... holidays (luxury holidays!) abroad etc etc etc

Although we complain how expensive house prices are, my grandparents still seemed to have a much harder life then people now, had less disposable money leftover.... yet obviously house prices were so much better compared to wages?? I dont understand that bit.

As far as I can see there are two types of "priced out" person: Those that realise there's no point saving for a house, so they spend their money on !!!!!! anyway - makes no difference they can't save more that prices are rising by; & those that don't spend their money on !!!!!! like that, because they're carefully sticking their money in ISAs & IceSave accounts, hoping in vain that maybe they'll be able to save more than house prices are rising by & it becomes worthwhile being responsible.

However, if you look on the DFW board you see plenty of people MEW'd to the eyeballs with outgoings like: Sky £35, mobile £35, pet food, pet insurance (surely a sack, a rock & enough petrol to the nearest bridge aren't that expensive?*) It's not the wannabe house buyers you need to watch, it's the keeping up with the Jones's "homeowners".

sortofok

Guy_Montag wrote: »

However, if you look on the DFW board you see plenty of people MEW'd to the eyeballs with outgoings like: Sky £35, mobile £35, pet food, pet insurance (surely a sack, a rock & enough petrol to the nearest bridge aren't that expensive?*)

Good morning Guy. did you sleep well.